:00:36. > :00:43.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:44. > :00:46.He's a man on a mission. But is it mission impossible? Iain Duncan
:00:47. > :00:50.Smith has started the radical reform of our welfare state. No tall order.
:00:51. > :00:54.And not everything's going to plan. We'll be talking to the man himself.
:00:55. > :00:58.Nick Clegg's hosting his party's spring conference in York. He's
:00:59. > :01:02.getting pretty cosy with the party faithful. Not so cosy, though, with
:01:03. > :01:05.his Coalition partners. In fact, things are getting a wee bit nasty.
:01:06. > :01:09.We'll be talking to his right-hand man, Danny Alexander.
:01:10. > :01:12.And are all politicians self-obsessed? Don't all shout at
:01:13. > :01:20.once. We'll be examining the self-obsessed? Don't all shout at
:01:21. > :01:23.Later in the programme: Taxing questions - we talk to the local
:01:24. > :01:26.government minister about council tax.
:01:27. > :01:27.And to the Plaid Cymru leader about taxing high earners.
:01:28. > :01:30.And to the Plaid Cymru leader about Can Southwark Council really build
:01:31. > :01:34.11,000 new homes in the next three decades?
:01:35. > :01:40.And with me, as always, three of the best and the brightest political
:01:41. > :01:43.panel in the business. At least that's what it says in the Sunday
:01:44. > :01:48.Politics template. Back from the Oscars empty handed, Helen Lewis,
:01:49. > :01:52.Janan Ganesh and Iain Martin. Yes, three camera-shy hacks, who've never
:01:53. > :01:55.taken a selfie in their life. We'll be coming to that later. They just
:01:56. > :01:56.like to tweet. And they'll be doing so throughout the programme.
:01:57. > :02:03.Welcome. Now, first this morning, the Liberal
:02:04. > :02:05.Democrat Spring Conference in York. I know you speak of nothing else!
:02:06. > :02:10.The Yorkshire spring sunshine hasn't made the Lib Dems think any more
:02:11. > :02:14.kindly of their Coalition partners. Indeed, Tory bashing is now the Lib
:02:15. > :02:19.Dem default position. Here's Danny Alexander speaking yesterday.
:02:20. > :02:21.Repairing the economy on its own isn't enough. We have to do it
:02:22. > :02:30.fairly. isn't enough. We have to do it
:02:31. > :02:35.the agenda a decision to cut taxes, income taxes, for working people.
:02:36. > :02:41.Now, conference, note that word - forced. We have had to fight for
:02:42. > :02:44.this at the last election and at every budget and at every Autumn
:02:45. > :02:52.Statement since 2010 and what a fight it has been.
:02:53. > :02:58.Danny Alexander joins us now. Are we going to have to suffer 14 months of
:02:59. > :03:02.you and your colleagues desperately trying to distance yourself from the
:03:03. > :03:08.Tories? It's not about distancing ourselves. It's about saying, " this
:03:09. > :03:14.is what we as a party have achieved in government together with the
:03:15. > :03:18.Conservatives". And saying, " this is what our agenda is for the
:03:19. > :03:24.future" . It's not just about the fact that this April we reach that
:03:25. > :03:28.?10,000 income tax allowance that we promised in our manifesto in 2010
:03:29. > :03:36.but also that we want to go further in the next parliament and live that
:03:37. > :03:39.to ?12,500, getting that over a 2-term Liberal Democrat government.
:03:40. > :03:43.It's very important for all parties to set out their own agenda, ideas
:03:44. > :03:46.and vision for the future, whilst also celebrating what we're
:03:47. > :03:50.achieving jointly in this Coalition, particularly around the fact that we
:03:51. > :03:56.are, having taken very difficult decisions, seeing the economy
:03:57. > :04:00.improving and seeing jobs creation in this country, which is something
:04:01. > :04:03.I'm personally very proud and, as the Coalition, we have achieved and
:04:04. > :04:08.wouldn't have if it hadn't been for the decisions of the Liberal
:04:09. > :04:12.Democrats. Lets try and move on. You've made that point about 50
:04:13. > :04:15.times on this show alone. You now seem more interested in Rowling with
:04:16. > :04:23.each other than running the country, don't you? -- rowing with each
:04:24. > :04:28.other. I think we are making sure we take the decisions, particularly
:04:29. > :04:33.about getting our economy on the right track. Of course, there are
:04:34. > :04:37.lots of things where the Conservatives have one view of the
:04:38. > :04:41.future and we have a different view and it's quite proper that we should
:04:42. > :04:43.set those things out. There are big differences between the Liberal
:04:44. > :04:46.Democrats and the Conservatives, just as there were big differences
:04:47. > :04:50.between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. I believe we're
:04:51. > :04:54.the only party that can marry that commitment delivering a strong
:04:55. > :04:57.economy, which Labour can't do, and that commitment to delivering a
:04:58. > :05:01.fairer society, which the Tories can't be trusted to do by
:05:02. > :05:04.themselves. You are going out of your way to pick fights with the
:05:05. > :05:09.Tories at the moment. It's a bit like American wrestling. It is all
:05:10. > :05:12.show. Nobody is really getting hurt. I've been compared to many things
:05:13. > :05:20.but an American wrestler is a first! I don't see it like that. It
:05:21. > :05:24.is right for us as a party to set out what we've achieved and show
:05:25. > :05:30.people that what we promised on 2010 on income tax cuts is what this
:05:31. > :05:33.government is delivering. But nobody seems convinced by these
:05:34. > :05:38.manufactured rows with the Tories. You've just come last in a council
:05:39. > :05:43.by-election with 56 votes. You were even bitten by an Elvis
:05:44. > :05:53.impersonator! Yes, that is true. -- beaten. I could equally well quote
:05:54. > :05:59.council by-elections that we've won recently, beating Conservatives, the
:06:00. > :06:02.Labour Party and UKIP. Our record on that is pretty good. You can always
:06:03. > :06:07.pick one that shows one or other party in a poor light. Our party is
:06:08. > :06:11.having real traction with the electric and the places where we
:06:12. > :06:13.have a real chance of winning. If you're not an American wrestler,
:06:14. > :06:18.maybe you should be an Elvis impersonator! You told your spring
:06:19. > :06:24.forum... You don't want to hear me sing! You want to raise the personal
:06:25. > :06:29.allowance to ?12,500 in the next Parliament. Will you refuse to enter
:06:30. > :06:33.into Coalition with any party that won't agree to that? What I said
:06:34. > :06:39.yesterday is that this will be something which is a very high
:06:40. > :06:43.priority for the Liberal Democrats. It's something that we will very
:06:44. > :06:49.much seek to achieve if we are involved... We know that - will it
:06:50. > :06:54.be a red line? If you are a number in 2010, on the front page of our
:06:55. > :06:59.manifesto, we highlighted four policies... I know all that. Will it
:07:00. > :07:04.be a red line? It will be something that is a very high priority for the
:07:05. > :07:11.Liberal Democrats to deliver. For the fifth time, will it be a red
:07:12. > :07:13.line? It will be, as I said, a very high priority for the Liberal
:07:14. > :07:18.Democrats in the next Parliament. That's my language. We did that in
:07:19. > :07:21.the next election. The number-1 promise on our manifesto with a
:07:22. > :07:25.?10,000 threshold and we've delivered that in this Parliament.
:07:26. > :07:32.People can see that when we say something is a top priority, we
:07:33. > :07:35.deliver it. Is it your claim... Are you claiming that the Tories would
:07:36. > :07:40.not have raised the starting point of income tax if it hadn't been for
:07:41. > :07:43.the Liberal Democrats? If you remember back in the leaders'
:07:44. > :07:47.debates in the 2010 election campaign, Nick Clegg was rightly
:07:48. > :07:53.championing this idea and David Cameron said it couldn't be
:07:54. > :07:59.afforded. Each step of the way in the Coalition negotiations within
:08:00. > :08:02.government, we've had to fight for that. The covert overtures have
:08:03. > :08:07.other priorities. -- the Conservatives. I don't want to go
:08:08. > :08:12.back into history. I'd like to get to the present. Have the
:08:13. > :08:17.Conservatives resisted every effort to raise the starting point of
:08:18. > :08:21.income tax? As I said, we promised this in 2010, they said it couldn't
:08:22. > :08:27.be done. We've made sure it was delivered in the Coalition. Have
:08:28. > :08:31.they resisted it? We've argued for big steps along the way and forced
:08:32. > :08:39.it on to the agenda. They've wanted to deliver other things are so we've
:08:40. > :08:45.had to fight for our priority... Did the Conservatives resist every
:08:46. > :08:48.attempt? It has been resisted, overall the things I'm talking
:08:49. > :08:51.about, by Conservatives, because they have wanted to deliver other
:08:52. > :08:57.things and, of course, in a Coalition you negotiate. Both
:08:58. > :09:00.parties have their priorities. Our priority has been a very consistent
:09:01. > :09:05.one. Last year, they were arguing about tax breaks for married
:09:06. > :09:11.couples. They were arguing in 2010 for tax cuts for millionaires. Our
:09:12. > :09:14.priority in all these discussions has been a consistent one, which is
:09:15. > :09:23.to say we want cutbacks for working people. -- we want to cut tax for
:09:24. > :09:26.working people. That has been delivered by both parties in the
:09:27. > :09:31.Coalition government full top So what do you think when the Tories
:09:32. > :09:34.take credit for it? I understand why they want to try to do that. Most
:09:35. > :09:42.people understand what we have just said. Not if the polls are to be
:09:43. > :09:50.believed... You're under 10%. This is one of the things, when I talk to
:09:51. > :09:54.people, but I find they know that the Lib Dems have delivered in
:09:55. > :09:57.government. People know we promised it in 2010 and we're the ones who
:09:58. > :10:02.forced this idea onto the agenda in our election manifesto. You've said
:10:03. > :10:09.that five times in this interview alone. The reality is, this is now a
:10:10. > :10:13.squabbling, loveless marriage. We're getting bored with all your tests,
:10:14. > :10:21.the voters. Why don't you just divorced? -- all your arguments. I
:10:22. > :10:24.don't accept that. On a lot of policy areas, the Coalition
:10:25. > :10:28.government has worked very well together. We're delivering an awful
:10:29. > :10:31.lot of things that matter to this country. Most importantly, the mess
:10:32. > :10:35.that Labour made of the economy we are sorting out. We are getting our
:10:36. > :10:39.finances on the right track, making our economy more competitive,
:10:40. > :10:43.creating jobs up and down this country, supporting businesses to
:10:44. > :10:47.invest in growth. That is what this Coalition was set up to do, what it
:10:48. > :10:49.is delivering, and both myself and George Osborne are proud to have
:10:50. > :10:54.worked together to deliver that record. Danny Alexander, thanks for
:10:55. > :11:00.that. Enjoyed York. Helen, is anybody listening? I do worry that
:11:01. > :11:04.another 40 months of this might drive voter apathy up to record
:11:05. > :11:11.levels. There is a simple answer to why they don't divorced - it's the
:11:12. > :11:15.agreement that Parliament will last until 2015. MPs are bouncing around
:11:16. > :11:19.Westminster with very little to do. They are looking for things to put
:11:20. > :11:22.in the Queen's Speech and we are going to have rocks basically the 40
:11:23. > :11:28.months and very little substantial difference in policies. Do you
:11:29. > :11:31.believe Danny Alexander when he says there would have been no rise in the
:11:32. > :11:36.starting rate of income tax if not for the Lib Dems? He's gilding the
:11:37. > :11:44.lily. If you look back at papers are written in 2001 suggesting precisely
:11:45. > :11:50.this policy, written by a Tory peer, you see there are plenty of Tories
:11:51. > :11:55.which suggest there would have been this kind of move. I can see why
:11:56. > :11:59.Danny Alexander needs to do this and they need to show they've achieved
:12:00. > :12:02.something in government because they are below 10% in the polls and
:12:03. > :12:08.finding it incredibly difficult to get any traction at all. The other
:12:09. > :12:13.leg of this Lib Dem repositioning is now to be explicitly the party of
:12:14. > :12:19.Europe and to be the vanguard of the fight to be all things pro-Europe.
:12:20. > :12:23.Mr Clegg is going to debate Nigel Farage in the run-up to the European
:12:24. > :12:49.elections. If, despite that, the Lib Dems come last of the major parties,
:12:50. > :12:54.doesn't it show how out of touch different. They are targeting a
:12:55. > :12:59.section of the electorate who are a bit more amenable to their views
:13:00. > :13:04.than the rest. They wouldn't get 20% of the vote. They are targeting that
:13:05. > :13:06.one section. They have to do disproportionately well amongst
:13:07. > :13:11.those and it will payoff and they will end up with something like 15%.
:13:12. > :13:21.How many seats will the Lib Dems losing the next election? Ten. 20.
:13:22. > :13:26.15. Triangulation! We'll keep that on tape and see what actually
:13:27. > :13:29.happens! The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain
:13:30. > :13:33.Duncan Smith is a man on a mission. He's undertaken the biggest overhaul
:13:34. > :13:36.in our welfare state since it was invented way back in the
:13:37. > :13:41.black-and-white days of the late 1940s. A committed Roman Catholic,
:13:42. > :13:45.he's said he has a moral vision to reverse the previous welfare system,
:13:46. > :13:49.which he believes didn't create enough incentive for people to work.
:13:50. > :13:53.But are his reforms working? Are they fair? As he bitten off more
:13:54. > :13:58.than he can chew? In a moment, we'll speak to the man himself but first,
:13:59. > :14:01.here's Adam. Hackney in north London and we're on
:14:02. > :14:05.the road with the man who might just be the most ambitious welfare
:14:06. > :14:09.secretary there's ever been. It's a journey that started in the wind and
:14:10. > :14:13.rain on a Glasgow council estate 12 years ago when he was Tory leader.
:14:14. > :14:19.He came face-to-face with what it meant to be poor. A selection of
:14:20. > :14:23.teddy bears. It's where he discovered his recipe for reform,
:14:24. > :14:28.according to one of the advisers who was with him. There are things that
:14:29. > :14:34.if you do get a job, keep your family together, stay off drugs and
:14:35. > :14:40.alcohol, make sure you have a proper skill - that's what keeps you of
:14:41. > :14:43.poverty. He, very ambitiously, wants to redefine the nature of what it
:14:44. > :14:48.means to be poor and how you get away from poverty. Back in north
:14:49. > :14:52.London, he's come to congratulate the troops on some good news. In
:14:53. > :14:56.this borough, the number of people on job-seeker's allowance has gone
:14:57. > :15:03.down by 29% in the last year, up from around 1700 to around 1200. But
:15:04. > :15:08.the picture in his wider changes to the welfare state is a bit more
:15:09. > :15:14.mixed. A cap on the total amount of benefits a family can get, of
:15:15. > :15:17.?26,000 a year, is hugely popular but there have been howls of protest
:15:18. > :15:23.over cuts to housing benefit, labelled the bedroom tax by some.
:15:24. > :15:25.Protests, too, about assessments for people on disability benefits,
:15:26. > :15:29.inherited from the previous government. Iain Duncan Smith has
:15:30. > :15:35.been accused of being heartless and the company doing them, Atos, has
:15:36. > :15:38.pulled out. And then the big one - and universal credit, a plan to roll
:15:39. > :15:43.six benefits into one monthly payment, in a way designed to ensure
:15:44. > :15:48.that work always pays. Some of the IT has been written off and the
:15:49. > :15:51.timetable seems to be slipping. Outside the bubble of the
:15:52. > :15:56.stage-managed ministerial trip, a local Labour MP reckons he's bitten
:15:57. > :16:01.off more than he can chew. The great desire is to say, " let's have one
:16:02. > :16:06.simple one size fits all approach" . And there isn't one size of person
:16:07. > :16:10.or family out there. People need to change and they can challenge on the
:16:11. > :16:13.turn of a penny almost. One minute they are doing the right thing,
:16:14. > :16:17.working hard. Next minute, they need a level of support and if this
:16:18. > :16:21.simple system doesn't deliver that for them, they're in a difficult
:16:22. > :16:27.position. And that's the flying visit to the front line finished. He
:16:28. > :16:31.does not like to hang about and just as well do - his overhaul of the
:16:32. > :16:40.entire benefits system still has quite a long way to go. And Iain
:16:41. > :16:44.Duncan Smith joins me now. Before I come onto the interview on welfare
:16:45. > :16:51.reform, is Danny Alexander right when he claims the Lib Dems had to
:16:52. > :16:56.fight to get the Tories to raise the income tax threshold? That is not my
:16:57. > :17:02.recollection of what happened. These debates took place in the
:17:03. > :17:06.Coalition. The Conservatives are in favour of reducing the overall
:17:07. > :17:11.burden of taxation, so the question was how best do we do it? The
:17:12. > :17:17.conversation took place, they were keen on raising the threshold, there
:17:18. > :17:21.were also other ways of doing it but it is clear from the Conservatives
:17:22. > :17:26.that we always wanted to improve the quality of life of those at the
:17:27. > :17:31.bottom so raising the threshold fit within the overall plan. If it was a
:17:32. > :17:40.row, it was the kind of row you have over a cup of tea round the
:17:41. > :17:47.breakfast table. We have got a lot to cover. There are two criticisms
:17:48. > :17:54.mainly of what you are doing - will they work, and will they be fair?
:17:55. > :17:58.Leslie Roberts, one of our viewers, wants to know why so much has
:17:59. > :18:01.already been written off due to failures of the universal credit
:18:02. > :18:10.system even though it has been barely introduced. Relatively it has
:18:11. > :18:17.been a ?2 billion investment project, in the private sector
:18:18. > :18:23.programmes are written off regularly at 30, 40%. The IT is working, we
:18:24. > :18:27.are improving as we go along, the key thing is to keep your eye on the
:18:28. > :18:37.parts that don't work and make sure they don't create a problem for the
:18:38. > :18:42.programme. 140 million has been wasted! The 40 million that was
:18:43. > :18:47.written off was just do with security IT, and I took that
:18:48. > :18:51.decision over a year and a half ago so the programme continued to roll
:18:52. > :19:02.out. Those figures include the standard right down, the aggregation
:19:03. > :19:07.of cost over a period of time. The computers were written down years
:19:08. > :19:11.ago but they continue to work now. Universal credit is rolling out, we
:19:12. > :19:15.are doing the Pathfinders and learning a lot but I will not ever
:19:16. > :19:27.do this again like the last government, big band launches, you
:19:28. > :19:29.should do it phrase by phrase. Even your colleague Francis Maude says
:19:30. > :19:36.the implementation of universal credit has been pretty lamentable.
:19:37. > :19:42.He was referring back to the time when I stopped that element of the
:19:43. > :19:47.process and I agreed with that. I intervened to make the changes. The
:19:48. > :19:54.key point is that it is rolling out and I invite anyone to look at where
:19:55. > :19:57.it is being rolled out to. You were predicting that a million people
:19:58. > :20:02.would be an universal credit, this is the new welfare credit which
:20:03. > :20:08.rolls up six existing welfare benefits and you were predicting a
:20:09. > :20:18.million people would be on it by April, well it is March and only
:20:19. > :20:23.3200 are on it. I changed the way we rolled it out and there was a reason
:20:24. > :20:28.for that. Under the advice of someone we brought from outside, he
:20:29. > :20:32.said that you are better rolling it out slower and gaining momentum
:20:33. > :20:36.later on. On the timetables for rolling out we are pretty clear that
:20:37. > :20:40.it will roll out within the timescale is originally set. We will
:20:41. > :20:46.roll it out into the Northwest so that we replicate the north and the
:20:47. > :20:54.Northwest, recognise how it works properly. You will not hit 1 million
:20:55. > :20:57.by April. I have no intention of claiming that, and it is quite
:20:58. > :21:03.deliberate because that is the wrong thing to do. We want to roll it out
:21:04. > :21:07.carefully so we make sure everything about it works. There are lots of
:21:08. > :21:13.variables in this process but if you do it that way, you will not end up
:21:14. > :21:17.with the kind of debacle where in the past something like ?28 billion
:21:18. > :21:26.worth of IT programmes were written off. ?38 billion of net benefits,
:21:27. > :21:33.which is exactly what the N a O Z, so it is worth getting it right.
:21:34. > :21:39.William Grant wants to know, when will the universal credit cover the
:21:40. > :21:42.whole country? By 2016, everybody who is claiming one of those six
:21:43. > :21:51.benefits will be claiming universal credit. Some and sickness benefits
:21:52. > :21:56.will take longer to come on because it is more difficult. Many of them
:21:57. > :22:01.have no work expectations on them, but for those on working tax
:22:02. > :22:06.credits, on things like job-seeker's allowance, they will be making
:22:07. > :22:11.claims on universal credit. Many of them are already doing that now,
:22:12. > :22:18.there are 200,000 people around the country already on universal credit.
:22:19. > :22:27.You cannot give me a date as to when everybody will be on it? 2016 is
:22:28. > :22:33.when everybody claiming this benefit will be on, then you have to bring
:22:34. > :22:38.others and take them slower. Universal credit is a big and
:22:39. > :22:43.important reform, not an IT reform. The important point is that it will
:22:44. > :22:49.be a massive cultural reform. Right now somebody has to go to work and
:22:50. > :22:52.there is a small job out there. They won't take that because the way
:22:53. > :22:57.their benefits are withdrawn, it will mean it is not worth doing it.
:22:58. > :23:02.Under the way we have got it in the Pathfinders, the change is
:23:03. > :23:06.dramatic. A job-seeker can take a small part time job while they are
:23:07. > :23:12.looking for work and it means flexibility for business so it is a
:23:13. > :23:16.big change. Lets see if that is true because universal credit is meant to
:23:17. > :23:23.make work pay, that is your mantra. Let me show you a quote Minister in
:23:24. > :23:46.the last -- in the last Tory conference. It
:23:47. > :23:52.has only come down to 76%. Actually form own parents, before they get to
:23:53. > :23:57.the tax bracket it is well below that. That is a decision the
:23:58. > :24:03.Government takes about the withdrawal rate so you can lower
:24:04. > :24:07.that rate or raise it. And do your reforms, some of the poorest
:24:08. > :24:20.people, if they burn an extra pound, will pay a marginal rate of
:24:21. > :24:24.76%. -- if they earn an extra pound. The 98% he is talking about is a
:24:25. > :24:31.specific area to do with lone parents but there are specific
:24:32. > :24:36.compound areas in the process that mean people are better off staying
:24:37. > :24:41.at home then going to work. They will be able to identify how much
:24:42. > :24:46.they are better off without needing to have a maths degree to figure it
:24:47. > :24:52.out. They are all taken away at different rates at the moment, it is
:24:53. > :24:57.complex and chaotic. Under universal credit that won't happen, and they
:24:58. > :25:03.will always be better off than they are now. Would you work that bit
:25:04. > :25:12.harder if the Government was going to take away that portion of what
:25:13. > :25:18.you learned? At the moment you are going to tax poor people at the same
:25:19. > :25:22.rate the French government taxes billionaires. Millions will be
:25:23. > :25:27.better off under this system of universal credit, I promise you, and
:25:28. > :25:32.that level of withdrawal then becomes something governments have
:25:33. > :25:38.to publicly discussed as to whether they lower or raise it. But George
:25:39. > :25:44.Osborne wouldn't give you the extra money to allow for the taper, is
:25:45. > :25:49.that right? The moment somebody crosses into work under the present
:25:50. > :25:53.system, there are huge cliff edges, in other words the immediate
:25:54. > :25:59.withdrawal makes it worse for them to go into work than otherwise. If
:26:00. > :26:09.he had given you more money, you could have tapered it more gently?
:26:10. > :26:12.Of course, but the Chancellor can always ultimately make that
:26:13. > :26:18.decision. These decisions are made by chancellors like tax rates, but
:26:19. > :26:23.it would be much easier under this system for the public to see what
:26:24. > :26:29.the Government chooses as its priorities. At the moment nobody has
:26:30. > :26:34.any idea but in the future it will be. Under the Pathfinders, we are
:26:35. > :26:40.finding people are going to work faster, doing more job searches, and
:26:41. > :26:46.more likely to take work under universal credit. Public Accounts
:26:47. > :26:55.Committee said this programme has been worse than doing nothing, for
:26:56. > :27:03.the long-term credit. It has not been a glorious success, has it?
:27:04. > :27:07.That is wrong. Right now the work programme is succeeding, more people
:27:08. > :27:11.are going to work, somewhere in the order of 500,000 people have gone
:27:12. > :27:17.back into work as a result of the programme. Around 280,000 people are
:27:18. > :27:22.in a sustained work over six months. Many companies are well
:27:23. > :27:27.above it, and the whole point about the work programme is that it is
:27:28. > :27:30.setup so that we make the private sector, two things that are
:27:31. > :27:36.important, there is competition in every area so that people can be
:27:37. > :27:41.sucked out of the programme and others can move in. The important
:27:42. > :27:45.point here as well is this, that actually they don't get paid unless
:27:46. > :27:50.they sustain somebody for six months of employment. Under previous
:27:51. > :27:54.programmes under the last government, they wasted millions
:27:55. > :27:59.paying companies who took the money and didn't do enough to get people
:28:00. > :28:06.into work. The best performing provider only moved 5% of people off
:28:07. > :28:14.benefit into work, the worst managed only 2%. It is young people. That
:28:15. > :28:19.report was on the early first months of the work programme, it is a
:28:20. > :28:24.two-year point we are now and I can give you the figures for this. They
:28:25. > :28:28.are above the line, the improvement has been dramatic and the work
:28:29. > :28:37.programme is better than any other back to work programme under the
:28:38. > :28:43.last government. So why is long-term unemployment rising? It is falling.
:28:44. > :28:48.We have the largest number of people back in work, there is more women in
:28:49. > :28:53.work than ever before, more jobs being created, 1.6 million new jobs
:28:54. > :29:00.being created. The work programme is working, our back to work programmes
:29:01. > :29:04.are incredibly successful at below cost so we are doing better than the
:29:05. > :29:10.last government ever did, and it will continue to improve because
:29:11. > :29:14.this process is very important. The competition is what drives up
:29:15. > :29:18.performance. We want the best performers to take the biggest
:29:19. > :29:25.numbers of people. You are practising Catholic, Archbishop
:29:26. > :29:29.Vincent Nichols has attached your reforms -- attack to your reforms,
:29:30. > :29:35.saying they are becoming more punitive to the most vulnerable in
:29:36. > :29:39.the land. What do you say? I don't agree. It would have been good if
:29:40. > :29:50.you called me before making these attacks because most are not
:29:51. > :29:54.correct. For the poorest temper sent in their
:29:55. > :29:58.society, they are now spending, as a percentage of their income, less
:29:59. > :30:03.than they did before. I'm not quite sure what he thinks welfare is
:30:04. > :30:07.about. Welfare is about stabilising people but most of all making sure
:30:08. > :30:12.that households can achieve what they need through work. The number
:30:13. > :30:16.of workless households under previous governments arose
:30:17. > :30:22.consistently. It has fallen for the first time in 30 years by nearly
:30:23. > :30:26.18%. Something like a quarter of a million children were growing up in
:30:27. > :30:29.workless households and are now in households with work and they are
:30:30. > :30:33.three times more likely to grow up with work than they would have been
:30:34. > :30:38.in workless households. Let me come into something that he may have had
:30:39. > :30:42.in mind as being punitive - some other housing benefit changes. A
:30:43. > :30:45.year ago, the Prime Minister announced that people with severely
:30:46. > :30:50.disabled children would be exempt from the changes but that was only
:30:51. > :30:55.after your department fought a High Court battle over children who
:30:56. > :31:00.couldn't share a bedroom because of severe disabilities. Isn't that what
:31:01. > :31:04.the Archbishop means by punitive or, some may describe it, heartless. We
:31:05. > :31:11.were originally going to appeal that and I said no. You put it up for an
:31:12. > :31:16.appeal and I said no. We're talking about families with disabled
:31:17. > :31:19.children. There are good reasons for this. Children with conditions like
:31:20. > :31:24.that don't make decisions about their household - their parents do -
:31:25. > :31:28.so I said we would exempt them. But for adults with disabilities the
:31:29. > :31:32.courts have upheld all of our decisions against complaints. But
:31:33. > :31:36.you did appeal it. It's just that, having lost in the appeal court, you
:31:37. > :31:40.didn't then go to the Supreme Court. You make decisions about this. My
:31:41. > :31:46.view was that it was right to exempt them at that time. I made that
:31:47. > :31:50.decision, not the Prime Minister. Let's get this right - the context
:31:51. > :31:54.of this is quite important. Housing benefit under the last government
:31:55. > :32:01.doubled under the last ten years to ?20 billion. It was set to rise to
:32:02. > :32:04.another 25 billion, the fastest rising of the benefits, it was out
:32:05. > :32:08.of control. We had to get it into control. It wasn't easy but we
:32:09. > :32:12.haven't cut the overall rise in housing. We've lowered it but we
:32:13. > :32:16.haven't cut housing benefit and we've tried to do it carefully so
:32:17. > :32:19.that people get a fair crack. On the spare room subsidy, which is what
:32:20. > :32:24.this complaint was about, the reality is that there are a quarter
:32:25. > :32:26.of a million people living in overcrowded accommodation. The last
:32:27. > :32:29.government left us with 1 million people on a waiting list for housing
:32:30. > :32:33.and there were half a million people sitting in houses with spare
:32:34. > :32:37.bedrooms they weren't using. As we build more houses, yes we need more,
:32:38. > :32:40.but the reality is that councils and others have to use their
:32:41. > :32:43.accommodation carefully so that they actually improve the lot of those
:32:44. > :32:47.living in desperate situations in overcrowded accommodation, and
:32:48. > :32:52.taxpayers are paying a lot of money. This will help people get
:32:53. > :32:55.back to work. They're more likely to go to work and more likely,
:32:56. > :33:01.therefore, to end up in the right sort of housing. We've not got much
:33:02. > :33:06.time left. A centre-right think tank that you've been associated with, on
:33:07. > :33:13.job-seeker's allowance, says 70,000 job-seekers' benefits were withdrawn
:33:14. > :33:19.unfairly. A viewer wants to know, are these reforms too harsh and
:33:20. > :33:22.punitive? Those figures are not correct. The Policy Exchange is
:33:23. > :33:30.wrong? Those figures are not correct and we will be publishing corrected
:33:31. > :33:33.figures. The reality is... Some people have lost their job-seeker
:33:34. > :33:37.benefits and been forced to go to food backs and they shouldn't have.
:33:38. > :33:43.No, they're not. What he is referring to is that we allowed an
:33:44. > :33:46.adviser to make a decision if some but it is not cooperating. We now
:33:47. > :33:50.make people sign a contract, where they agree these things. These are
:33:51. > :33:54.things we do for you and if you don't do these things, you are
:33:55. > :33:57.likely to have your benefit withdrawn on job-seeker's allowance.
:33:58. > :34:01.Some of this was an fairly withdrawn. There are millions of
:34:02. > :34:06.these things that go through. This is a very small subset. But if you
:34:07. > :34:11.lose your job-seeker benefit unfairly, you have no cash flow.
:34:12. > :34:17.There is an immediate review within seven days of that decision. Within
:34:18. > :34:20.seven days, that decision is reviewed. They are able to get a
:34:21. > :34:25.hardship fund straightaway if there is a problem. We have nearly ?1
:34:26. > :34:32.billion setup to help people, through crisis, hardship funds and
:34:33. > :34:36.in many other ways. We've given more than ?200 million to authorities to
:34:37. > :34:42.do face-to-face checks. This is not a nasty, vicious system but a system
:34:43. > :34:45.that says, "look, we ask you to do certain things. Taxpayers pay this
:34:46. > :34:49.money. You are out of work but you have obligations to seek work. We
:34:50. > :34:54.simply ask that you stick to doing those. Those sanctions are therefore
:34:55. > :34:57.be but he will not cooperate" . I think it is only fair to say to
:34:58. > :35:00.those people that they make choices throughout their life and if they
:35:01. > :35:05.choose not to cooperate, this is what happens. Is child poverty
:35:06. > :35:13.rising? No, it is actually falling in the last figures. 300,000 it fell
:35:14. > :35:19.in the last... Let me show you these figures. That is a projection by the
:35:20. > :35:24.Institute of fiscal studies. It also shows that it has gone up every year
:35:25. > :35:28.and will rise by 400,000 in this Parliament, and your government, and
:35:29. > :35:32.will continue to rise. But never mind the projection. It may be
:35:33. > :35:38.right, may be wrong. It would be 400,000 up compared to when -- what
:35:39. > :35:44.you inherited when this Parliament ends. That isn't a projection but
:35:45. > :35:48.the actual figures. But the last figures show that child poverty has
:35:49. > :35:53.fallen by some 300,000. The important point is... Can I just
:35:54. > :35:56.finished this point of? Child poverty is measured against 60% of
:35:57. > :36:03.median income so this is an issue about how we measure child poverty.
:36:04. > :36:06.You want to change the measure. I made the decision not to publish our
:36:07. > :36:10.change figures at this point because we've still got a bit more work to
:36:11. > :36:13.do on them but there is a big consensus that the way we measure
:36:14. > :36:18.child poverty right now does not measure exactly what requires to be
:36:19. > :36:21.done. For example, a family with an individual parent who may be drug
:36:22. > :36:25.addicted and gets what we think is enough money to be just over the
:36:26. > :36:28.line, their children may be living in poverty but they won't be
:36:29. > :36:31.measured so we need to get a measurement that looks at poverty in
:36:32. > :36:37.terms of how people live, not just in terms of the income levels they
:36:38. > :36:42.have. You can see on that chart - 400,000 rising by the end of this
:36:43. > :36:46.Parliament - you are deciding over an increase. Speedier I want to
:36:47. > :36:49.change it because under the last government child poverty rose
:36:50. > :36:55.consistently from 2004 and they ended up chucking huge sums of money
:36:56. > :37:02.into things like tax credits. In tax credits, in six years before the
:37:03. > :37:05.last election, the last government spent ?175 billion chasing a poverty
:37:06. > :37:09.target and they didn't achieve what they set out to achieve. We don't
:37:10. > :37:14.want to continue down that line where you simply put money into a
:37:15. > :37:18.welfare system to alter a marginal income line. It doesn't make any
:37:19. > :37:22.sense. That's why we want to change it, not because some projection says
:37:23. > :37:35.it might be going up. I will point out again it isn't a projection up
:37:36. > :37:39.to 2013-14. You want it to make work pay but more people in poverty are
:37:40. > :37:45.now in working families than in workless families. For them, workers
:37:46. > :37:50.not paying. Those figures referred to the last government's time in
:37:51. > :37:56.government. What is interesting about it is that until 2010, under
:37:57. > :38:00.the last government, those in working families - poverty in
:38:01. > :38:03.working families rose by half a million. For the two years up to the
:38:04. > :38:08.end of those figures, it has been flat, under this government. These
:38:09. > :38:14.are figures at the last government... You inherited and it
:38:15. > :38:19.hasn't changed. The truth is, even if you are in poverty in a working
:38:20. > :38:22.family, your children, if they are in workless families, are three
:38:23. > :38:27.times more likely to be out of work and to suffer real hardship. So, in
:38:28. > :38:33.other words, moving people up the scale, into work and then on is
:38:34. > :38:36.important. The problem with the last government system with working tax
:38:37. > :38:40.credit is it locks them into certain hours and they didn't progress.
:38:41. > :38:44.We're changing that so that you progress on up and go out of poverty
:38:45. > :38:49.through work and beyond it. But those figures you're referring to
:38:50. > :38:54.refer to the last government's tenure and they spent ?175 billion
:38:55. > :38:58.on a tax credit which still left people in work in poverty. Even 20
:38:59. > :39:02.minutes isn't enough to go through all this. A lot more I'd like to
:39:03. > :39:07.talk about. I hope you will come back. I will definitely come back.
:39:08. > :39:11.Thank you for joining us. You're watching the Sunday
:39:12. > :39:12.Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now for
:39:13. > :39:29.Sunday Politics Scotland. Of Hello and on the Sunday Politics
:39:30. > :39:32.Wales. The local government minister tells
:39:33. > :39:35.me she wants councils to be reasonable on tax, and transparent
:39:36. > :39:40.on pay. Plaid Cymru's leader distances herself from a call to cut
:39:41. > :39:46.tax for high earners and. Where does the Silk Road lead? To a more
:39:47. > :39:49.powerful assembly perhaps? I'm joined by two people with opposing
:39:50. > :39:53.views. But first, Plaid Cymru's spring
:39:54. > :39:56.conference closed yesterday. Plaid leader Leanne Wood used it to attack
:39:57. > :40:04.what she calls UKIP's "ugly politics".
:40:05. > :40:10.But that in turn was a time by one of her predecessors, by Comrie
:40:11. > :40:16.member David Thomas. She has distanced herself from a call from
:40:17. > :40:24.Adam Price to lower the top rate of income tax.
:40:25. > :40:32.In your speech yesterday you talked about all sorts of things, but in
:40:33. > :40:36.particular you are very critical of the Labour government, more critical
:40:37. > :40:40.than you have been in the past. I wonder since you have been leader,
:40:41. > :40:44.you are very conciliatory at the start. Is this a change of
:40:45. > :40:51.direction? I would say that I have been quite
:40:52. > :40:54.keen to put forward by Comrie's positive role in government, but to
:40:55. > :41:00.make sure we scrutinise the government we have got. I intend for
:41:01. > :41:04.Plaid Cymru to run an excellent campaign in 2016, DFID before the
:41:05. > :41:07.people of Wales a solid programme of government that is able to meet
:41:08. > :41:15.their needs and salt people's problems, and in order to do that,
:41:16. > :41:21.that will result in hopefully a good result for us where we are
:41:22. > :41:24.government of Wales. People need to be aware of the failings of this
:41:25. > :41:29.government and there are plenty, and I pointed some of them out.
:41:30. > :41:32.You said that Labour was bidding under threat the future of
:41:33. > :41:37.devolution. A very strong thing to say, what did you mean?
:41:38. > :41:44.We have big failings in our education system, in our health
:41:45. > :41:47.system, hospitals and civilisation, which risks further exacerbating
:41:48. > :41:53.those problems, the economy is in decline. We saw the figures for West
:41:54. > :42:01.Wales and the valleys where the GDP has gone down from 65% of the EU
:42:02. > :42:04.average to 64%. There are huge problems across the range of
:42:05. > :42:07.responsibilities of the Welsh government that are not being
:42:08. > :42:11.addressed, and we have to shine a light on it.
:42:12. > :42:20.You talked about this economic recovery being hollow, and based on
:42:21. > :42:23.a spreadsheet, and yet, what is based on a spreadsheet about the
:42:24. > :42:33.unemployment rate in Wales now lower than the UK averages that is real.
:42:34. > :42:37.Yes, it is real, but it masks problems that are there. There are
:42:38. > :42:43.many people on zero hours contracts, many people who are underemployed,
:42:44. > :42:47.more people working part-time. There are 250,000 people in Wales in
:42:48. > :42:50.earning less than a living wage. There are a lot of things that need
:42:51. > :42:56.to be done in terms of turning the economy around. Where I live, youth
:42:57. > :42:59.unemployment stands at 40%. The Welsh government would try to paint
:43:00. > :43:05.a picture that everything in the garden is rosy. The recovery that we
:43:06. > :43:10.have seen is fine on paper, but what it shows to me is that there are
:43:11. > :43:15.problems being masked in Wales, and also that there is an overheating
:43:16. > :43:20.economy in London and the region around there in the south-east that
:43:21. > :43:25.is giving a picture for the whole of the UK which is very imbalanced, and
:43:26. > :43:28.Wales has lost out a lot due to austerity measures from the
:43:29. > :43:34.Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition, and all of those problems
:43:35. > :43:38.have built up over many years. The figures make sure one thing, but you
:43:39. > :43:42.need to dig underneath us to get the true picture.
:43:43. > :43:48.The main thrust of your attack was against UKIP. The former leader of
:43:49. > :43:55.the party has described what you said about UKIP as facile. What you
:43:56. > :43:59.said was that a vote for UKIP was somehow anti-Welsh, it was against
:44:00. > :44:05.the interests of Wales. He thinks that is far too simplistic, and a
:44:06. > :44:08.lot of people whether you like it or not support UKIP in Wales, and as a
:44:09. > :44:12.result you should treat them more seriously.
:44:13. > :44:16.I do treat people who support UKIP seriously, that is why I am keen to
:44:17. > :44:23.point out the risk is UKIP when. Wales faces two very different
:44:24. > :44:28.futures and they want people to have their eyes wide open. In 2017 we
:44:29. > :44:33.could be the king had a referendum which cools Wales out of the EU
:44:34. > :44:37.potentially against the will of the people of Wales. It could be that
:44:38. > :44:42.the majority of people want to go that way, but I would argue that
:44:43. > :44:45.when one in ten jobs as reliant on us being in the EU, it is against
:44:46. > :44:51.the Welsh national interest for us to polite. I vote for UKIP is
:44:52. > :44:56.therefore a vote against the Welsh national interest. -- it is against
:44:57. > :45:04.the interest are asked to call out of Europe.
:45:05. > :45:09.I faced a number of tricky tests since becoming leader of this
:45:10. > :45:14.party. We have got a job of work to do, but I can be confident now in
:45:15. > :45:20.having that these arguments forward to our activists that they will go
:45:21. > :45:26.out onto the streets and make sure that the Plaid Cymru vote gets out.
:45:27. > :45:31.We are also appealing to disillusioned Liberal Democrat and
:45:32. > :45:35.green voters who have never had an MEP in Wales and have very little
:45:36. > :45:39.chance of getting one. If they want to support policies like insuring
:45:40. > :45:43.climate changes the agenda, the Robin Hood tax, international
:45:44. > :45:49.cooperation, if those things are important to those waters, what they
:45:50. > :45:59.really need to do on May 22 is to not stay at home but go out and
:46:00. > :46:01.support Plaid Cymru and the MEPs. One of the things that has been
:46:02. > :46:07.under discussion in the last few days is what we could do with
:46:08. > :46:12.taxation. Adam Price a senior figure in the party indicated that he would
:46:13. > :46:16.lower the higher rate of income tax is that power existed to Wales. I
:46:17. > :46:22.think most people will assume you would be against that idea.
:46:23. > :46:29.I'm not appeared at this point to outline Plaid Cymru's tax policies.
:46:30. > :46:33.Recently there has been an application of sharing income tax
:46:34. > :46:39.Paris with Wales... If they come, those powers will not be with us
:46:40. > :46:46.until 2021. Nobody can predict what the state of the Welsh economy will
:46:47. > :46:51.be like in 2021. What Adam Price has put forward is for changing the top
:46:52. > :46:55.rate of tax in the event that we have those tax-raising powers
:46:56. > :47:01.without a lockstep. Are many ifs there, but it is an interesting
:47:02. > :47:06.debate. It will form part of the debate in the coming years because
:47:07. > :47:09.what we must do is raise the level of economic activity in Wales, raise
:47:10. > :47:16.the level of productivity, and ultimately maximise the take in the
:47:17. > :47:21.tax pot. There will be a range of debates about how we do that, but we
:47:22. > :47:23.will get our policy right in time for those tax-raising powers if they
:47:24. > :47:27.do ever come to Wales. Councils have set their budgets for
:47:28. > :47:30.the next financial year, and there are cuts all round. Except for
:47:31. > :47:35.council tax, which will rise by an average of ?42. Meanwhile, there's
:47:36. > :47:44.continuing criticism of the wages paid to some local authority chief
:47:45. > :47:47.executives. Cracks are showing at cash-strapped
:47:48. > :47:51.councils. That is the verdict of the Wales audit office... It says many
:47:52. > :47:56.authorities don't have clear plans to cope with austerity, so with
:47:57. > :48:00.bigger cuts about to bite, I met up with local government Minister
:48:01. > :48:05.Lesley Griffiths and asked whether councils have their house in order.
:48:06. > :48:10.Local authorities have been told that cuts are coming, and in the
:48:11. > :48:17.previous years they have had a level of funding to enable them to make
:48:18. > :48:20.transformational services, and to collaborate with each other at a
:48:21. > :48:25.level we haven't seen before. Have they done that?
:48:26. > :48:32.Some have done it better than others. But I think we all recognise
:48:33. > :48:37.that more needs to be done. This will become a reality now, a
:48:38. > :48:44.new financial year, new council tax bills. Should the burden falls on
:48:45. > :48:48.the taxpayer or the services? It is about striking a balance, it
:48:49. > :48:52.is up to each local authority to set the level that they think is right.
:48:53. > :48:56.We as a government give them the flexibility to do that. I think it
:48:57. > :49:02.is the most accountable thing that a local authority can do for its local
:49:03. > :49:06.population. I am monitoring the budgets, I don't want them to be
:49:07. > :49:10.unreasonable, and I know that they are taking the views of council
:49:11. > :49:14.taxpayers into consideration as they have gone round setting the
:49:15. > :49:18.budgets. I think they are engaging with the public.
:49:19. > :49:23.What is reasonable and unreasonable? We have seen some
:49:24. > :49:28.councils go for the maximum 5% increase.
:49:29. > :49:31.I didn't give them a figure, because I thought I'd give them a figure
:49:32. > :49:35.they would all think that was a figure they could start with. At the
:49:36. > :49:40.moment I am analysing all the increases that are coming in.
:49:41. > :49:49.I don't recall ever seen so many go right up to the limit of 5%.
:49:50. > :49:55.Badlands on your doorstep, and so council taxpayers face higher bills,
:49:56. > :50:02.don't they? It is challenging, of course. But I
:50:03. > :50:06.can only give them what I have. Our budget has been cut so significantly
:50:07. > :50:12.by the UK government, I can only give them what I have, and they can
:50:13. > :50:15.only pass on what they have. So it is really important to look at their
:50:16. > :50:18.council tax, try not to be unreasonable, try not to burden on
:50:19. > :50:24.the taxpayer, and I hope that is what they have done.
:50:25. > :50:26.As taxpayers, surely get used to seeing bigger increases in council
:50:27. > :50:33.tax bills? In Wales, the band D is lower than
:50:34. > :50:38.in England, so we do have a lower level of council tax than England.
:50:39. > :50:42.Even in Scotland's weather has been a council tax freeze since 2007, we
:50:43. > :50:50.are rolling on a par with Scotland. So we do have a significantly lower
:50:51. > :50:53.council tax in Wales. In England money has been made
:50:54. > :50:58.available to freeze or even lower council tax. In some borough 's
:50:59. > :51:02.council tax hasn't cut seven times in the last eight years. What is
:51:03. > :51:06.happening in England that is not happening in Wales were council tax
:51:07. > :51:10.bills are going up? It is not correct to say there is a
:51:11. > :51:16.freeze in England, we now 40 local authorities have had raises in the
:51:17. > :51:19.last year. It is up to each local authority to decide its council tax
:51:20. > :51:27.level. They are accountable to local population.
:51:28. > :51:30.Councils spend a lot of money on hiring senior staff. A report
:51:31. > :51:37.recently showed that Chief Executive pay ranges from around 105,000 to
:51:38. > :51:43.around ?195,000. Or do you make of that?
:51:44. > :51:47.Senior salaries are very much in the news and I notice something the
:51:48. > :51:53.public are rightly interested in. It is up to local authorities to have
:51:54. > :51:56.those statements. It is right that the public can access them and they
:51:57. > :52:02.see how decisions are being taken. When councils are setting senior
:52:03. > :52:06.salary pay, it must be transparent, the public must realise how they
:52:07. > :52:11.have come to that, we have also given against the new appointments
:52:12. > :52:16.over ?100,000 the full council should have the authority to vote on
:52:17. > :52:21.that, and within the recent democracy act, it is right that when
:52:22. > :52:27.they want to be should refer the salary to a remuneration panel.
:52:28. > :52:34.This is the result of a deal between political parties. When will we see
:52:35. > :52:45.the consequences of that? The gains will be issued in April.
:52:46. > :52:53.Chief Executive pay ranges by almost ?100,000, how has that come about?
:52:54. > :52:57.Local authorities are autonomous employers and they said their
:52:58. > :53:01.salaries and statements. Because of the concerns that I raised, many
:53:02. > :53:07.people have written to me about this, I think it is right that local
:53:08. > :53:11.authorities demonstrate how those decisions have been made and the
:53:12. > :53:18.public have access to it. And is important they can see those
:53:19. > :53:21.statements easily. You have commissioned a review into
:53:22. > :53:26.council tax benefit, the scheme that has replaced that, will that money
:53:27. > :53:32.continue into the next financial year?
:53:33. > :53:35.We have to look at it. You will appreciate the UK government
:53:36. > :53:39.completely cut council tax support. We had to pick up the bill. We have
:53:40. > :53:43.been able to protect that for two years. I want a sustainable scheme
:53:44. > :53:47.and we are in partnership with local government.
:53:48. > :53:51.When will you make a decision? Because people are worried that they
:53:52. > :53:54.may get a council tax bill for the first time ever when the scheme
:53:55. > :53:58.ends. We want to avoid that, because we
:53:59. > :54:02.know that some of these people are the most vulnerable in our society.
:54:03. > :54:05.We will conduct a review as soon as possible.
:54:06. > :54:08.No date at the moment? Not at the moment.
:54:09. > :54:12.And BBC Cymru Wales will take a closer look at the finances and
:54:13. > :54:14.services of local councils over the next couple of days.
:54:15. > :54:18.Now, the National Assembly needs more power, including over the
:54:19. > :54:24.police. That's the verdict of the Silk commission which delivered its
:54:25. > :54:29.second report last week. Jubilation three years ago when
:54:30. > :54:35.Wales voted for more devolution. The referendum of 2011 boosted the
:54:36. > :54:42.lawmaking powers of the assembly. It was a resounding Yes vote, albeit on
:54:43. > :54:47.a small turnout. What a contrast to 1997 when the assembly squeaked into
:54:48. > :54:49.existence. Since then, reports and enquiries have asked whether we have
:54:50. > :54:54.the right system of evolution. The latest, the Silk commission, has
:54:55. > :54:59.paved the way to tax and borrowing powers for the Welsh government. It
:55:00. > :55:03.says we should go further still, with youth justice and policing
:55:04. > :55:07.devolved to a bigger assembly with more members. The commission priced
:55:08. > :55:13.offer a sustainable settlement. Have attracted? Or how long will it be
:55:14. > :55:14.before we're back here again asking whether the assembly needs more
:55:15. > :55:17.power? Here to discuss that question and
:55:18. > :55:20.others are Cathy Owens, a former Welsh government special adviser who
:55:21. > :55:36.campaigned for a Yes vote in 2011, and Rachel Banner, who led the No
:55:37. > :55:39.vote. Cathy, the group that Rachel represents one of a slippery slope
:55:40. > :55:45.of more powers and more devolution, they were writes, when they?
:55:46. > :55:49.What they were right about is that this commission will not put aside
:55:50. > :55:54.any discussions about constitutional change. This is not a stable
:55:55. > :56:00.settlement that will last for 30 years we will continually discuss
:56:01. > :56:05.constitutional change. Why is that? Why can't we get it
:56:06. > :56:09.right and put it to bed? Because we are part of a continuum.
:56:10. > :56:12.There is a small number one in the wonderful sensation, there is a
:56:13. > :56:15.small number of the other end of what to get rid of the assembly
:56:16. > :56:19.altogether. Most people are around the middle, only to find a balance,
:56:20. > :56:23.and that might shift over time. There will not be a moment when we
:56:24. > :56:28.don't talk about constitutional matters any more. A lot of people
:56:29. > :56:32.say we have to focus on delivery, and that is absolutely the case. I
:56:33. > :56:37.think this piece of work stands together very well. There are some
:56:38. > :56:41.elements that could be interviews tomorrow without changing very
:56:42. > :56:45.much. It recognises that the settlement is a bit odd and that the
:56:46. > :56:51.UK government has not really grasp it and other organisations could do
:56:52. > :56:58.more. It says that the BBC should recognise Welsh voices a bit more.
:56:59. > :57:01.Rachel Banner, the statement he released when the report came out,
:57:02. > :57:09.you were appalled at the extent of radical changes. Isn't that a bit
:57:10. > :57:11.over the top? If the assembly is responsible for educating children
:57:12. > :57:16.and running hospitals, why not use dusters and police?
:57:17. > :57:23.At the moment we have an economy in crisis, education and health in deep
:57:24. > :57:25.trouble, and would like to see the assembly focusing on that rather
:57:26. > :57:32.than constitutional change. We were told in 2011 that the referendum was
:57:33. > :57:36.about a tidying up exercise, and here we are just two years on, we
:57:37. > :57:42.have the Silk commission which was set up by the UK government in the
:57:43. > :57:48.event of a Yes vote. We were not told of the consequences that we
:57:49. > :57:53.would see talk about devolution of criminal Justice and tax powers. We
:57:54. > :57:57.never had a discussion about that, and here we are, and it is likely to
:57:58. > :58:02.be introduced to manifestoes, not even a second referendum.
:58:03. > :58:08.That is the opportunity to have a debate about the next ages of
:58:09. > :58:10.devolution. With respect, when you set up a group of politicians and
:58:11. > :58:15.the new system there will always be debate about more powers, she do not
:58:16. > :58:19.have expected this? There will never be a proper
:58:20. > :58:24.debate. If there was going to be a debate it would be in 2011. Here we
:58:25. > :58:29.are in 2014 and what we see is comments and promises about the Silk
:58:30. > :58:32.commission recommendations being tucked away in the back of
:58:33. > :58:37.manifestoes. We won't have a proper debate about us, and people of Wales
:58:38. > :58:45.are now seeing radical devolution without a mandate for it.
:58:46. > :58:49.Democratically elected mandates of democratically elected politicians
:58:50. > :58:56.in our present that democracy. That is a bit of an issue, True Wales did
:58:57. > :59:00.lose, and I think we have to respect with the people of Wales are. And I
:59:01. > :59:10.think that the next discussion is around policing because even though
:59:11. > :59:13.you might have an issue on health, and I think that has very good job
:59:14. > :59:17.of seeing some of these figures aren't right, I think most people in
:59:18. > :59:21.Wales will recognise if we are to reconfigure hospitals with a grab
:59:22. > :59:26.somebody in Cardiff working on that and making a decision rather than
:59:27. > :59:29.Jeremy Hunt or Andy Burnham for that matter.
:59:30. > :59:34.The argument that Rachel Banner makes is that the Welsh government
:59:35. > :59:37.hasn't done a very good job with the responsibilities and has now. Is it
:59:38. > :59:40.fair that we should expect the assembly to earn the right for more
:59:41. > :59:44.powers? Not only with the Welsh government
:59:45. > :59:46.disagree with that point of view, but the Welsh government that is
:59:47. > :59:52.represented by the Labour Party keeps getting re-elected in a
:59:53. > :59:57.democratically accountable system. It is wrong to say that nobody
:59:58. > :00:00.agrees with what is going on here. The Welsh government keeps getting
:00:01. > :00:06.re-elected in various different forms, but most people in Wales
:00:07. > :00:09.really do think that health and education should be decided in
:00:10. > :00:15.Wales, and that is an argument that Rachel has lost.
:00:16. > :00:18.No, because I have not argued that health and education should be taken
:00:19. > :00:23.back to Westminster, although there is now an argument about the
:00:24. > :00:27.overview of the NHS. They have done a bad job, the Welsh government, on
:00:28. > :00:31.both of these issues. There is time for it to do better, but it must
:00:32. > :00:38.start looking at those things because there is a crisis.
:00:39. > :00:40.Do you say a blanket no to any more powers, or do you distinguish
:00:41. > :00:45.between some of the things on offer?
:00:46. > :00:50.I would agree with Cathy on the BBC, that there should be a Welsh voice
:00:51. > :00:56.from the BBC which currently is not strong enough.
:00:57. > :01:03.That's not really about the assembly, is it?
:01:04. > :01:07.True Wales would not support further devolution, and there is no mandate
:01:08. > :01:10.for further devolution of crime and policing. It would have to go to
:01:11. > :01:17.referendum. Also tax-raising powers. We argued that a Yes vote
:01:18. > :01:21.would lead to tax-raising powers. The yes campaign have continually
:01:22. > :01:26.said that the referendum was not about these things.
:01:27. > :01:34.I want to move on to the recommendation for more members of
:01:35. > :01:38.the assembly. Will anyone grasp the nettle and say, we have more power,
:01:39. > :01:44.we need more members? Lets not forget that constitutional
:01:45. > :01:51.powers are not devolved. It is something we have to agree as a UK
:01:52. > :01:53.level. If a package is great to change the constitution and we have
:01:54. > :01:58.to scrutinised police and criminal justice, you could argue there needs
:01:59. > :02:03.to be better scrutiny here. Rachel Banner, is that your fair?
:02:04. > :02:09.Yes, that is what we predicted. We don't need more members, we have
:02:10. > :02:11.members who have already lost their responsibilities who could come down
:02:12. > :02:15.to the assembly and help to scrutinise legislation.
:02:16. > :02:16.We're out of time, I'm sorry to say.
:02:17. > :02:36.And that's Now, without further ado, more from
:02:37. > :02:40.our political panel. Iain Martin, what did you make of Iain Duncan
:02:41. > :02:45.Smith's response to the Danny Alexander point I'd put to him? I
:02:46. > :02:49.thought it was a cheekily put response but actually, on Twitter,
:02:50. > :02:52.people have been tweeting while on air that there are lots of examples
:02:53. > :02:58.where the Tories have demanded the raising of the threshold. The 2006
:02:59. > :03:05.Forsyth tax omission is another example. Helen, on the bigger issue
:03:06. > :03:10.of welfare reforms, is welfare reform, as we head into the
:03:11. > :03:15.election, despite all the criticisms, still a plus for the
:03:16. > :03:18.government? I don't think so. Whatever the opposite of a Midas
:03:19. > :03:24.touch is, Iain Duncan Smith has got it. David Cameron never talks about
:03:25. > :03:26.universal credit any more. The record on personal independence
:03:27. > :03:33.payment, for example... We didn't get onto that. Only one in six of
:03:34. > :03:41.those notes have been paid. A toss pulling out of their condiment has
:03:42. > :03:44.been a nightmare. It's a very big minus point for the Secretary of
:03:45. > :03:56.State. -- Atos pulling out of bed contract. Welfare cuts are an
:03:57. > :04:01.unambiguous point for the government but other points more ambiguous. I
:04:02. > :04:06.don't think it's technical complexity that makes IDS's reform a
:04:07. > :04:12.problem. The IT gets moved out with time. But even if it's in fermented
:04:13. > :04:16.perfectly, what it will achieve has been slightly oversold, I think, and
:04:17. > :04:21.simplified incredibly. All it does is improve incentives to work for
:04:22. > :04:26.one section of the income scale and diminishes it at another. Basically,
:04:27. > :04:30.you are encouraged to go from working zero hours to 16 hours but
:04:31. > :04:34.your incentive to work beyond 16 goes down. That's not because it's a
:04:35. > :04:37.horrendous policy but because in work benefits systems are
:04:38. > :04:47.imperceptible. Most countries do worse than we do. -- benefits
:04:48. > :04:50.systems cannot be perfected. They need to tone down how much this can
:04:51. > :04:53.achieve even if it all goes flawlessly. There are clearly
:04:54. > :04:59.problems, particularly within limitation, but Labour is still wary
:05:00. > :05:05.of welfare reform. -- with implementation. Polls suggest it is
:05:06. > :05:11.rather popular. People may not know what's involved were like the sound
:05:12. > :05:15.of it. I think Janan is right to mark out the differences between
:05:16. > :05:21.welfare cuts and welfare reforms. They are related but distinct. Are
:05:22. > :05:28.we saying cuts are more popular than reform? They clearly are. The
:05:29. > :05:36.numbers, when you present people numbers on benefit reductions, are
:05:37. > :05:40.off the scale. Reform, for the reasons you explored in your
:05:41. > :05:45.interview, is incredibly compensated. What's interesting is
:05:46. > :05:51.that Labour haven't really definitively said what their
:05:52. > :05:56.position is on this. I think they like - despite what they may see in
:05:57. > :05:58.public occasionally - some of what universal credit might produce but
:05:59. > :06:06.they don't want to be associated with it. We probably won't know
:06:07. > :06:12.until if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister precisely what direction
:06:13. > :06:16.Labour will go. Immigration is still a hot topic in Westminster and
:06:17. > :06:18.throughout the country. This new Home Office minister, James
:06:19. > :06:24.Brokenshire, made an intervention. Let's see what he had to say. For
:06:25. > :06:28.too long, the benefits of immigration went to employers who
:06:29. > :06:32.wanted an easy supply of cheap labour or to the wealthy
:06:33. > :06:35.metropolitan elite who wanted cheap tradesmen and services, but not to
:06:36. > :06:40.the ordinary hard-working people of this country. With the result that
:06:41. > :06:44.the Prime Minister and everyone else has to tell us all whether they've
:06:45. > :06:49.now got Portuguese or whatever it is Nanny is. Is this the most
:06:50. > :06:53.cack-handed intervention on an immigration issue in a long list? I
:06:54. > :07:00.think it is and when I saw this being trailed the night before, I
:07:01. > :07:02.worried for him. As soon as a minister of the Crown uses the
:07:03. > :07:38.phrase "wealthy metropolitan elite" more likely we see it in recession.
:07:39. > :07:44.We've just had the worst recession in several decades. It's no small
:07:45. > :07:49.problem but compared to what ministers like James Brokenshire has
:07:50. > :07:52.been saying for the past few years and also the reluctance to issue the
:07:53. > :07:58.report earlier, I thought that, combined with the speech, made it
:07:59. > :08:01.quite a bad week for the department. Was this a cack-handed attempt to
:08:02. > :08:06.appeal to the UKIP voters? I think so and he's predecessor had to leave
:08:07. > :08:10.the job because of having a foreign cleaner. It drew attention to the
:08:11. > :08:15.Tories' biggest problem, the out of touch problem. Most people around
:08:16. > :08:21.the country probably don't have a Portuguese nanny and you've just put
:08:22. > :08:25.a big sign over David Cameron saying, this man can afford a
:08:26. > :08:27.Portuguese Nanny. It is not the finest political operation ever
:08:28. > :08:32.conducted and the speech was definitely given by the Home Office
:08:33. > :08:38.to Number Ten but did Number Ten bother to read it? It was a complete
:08:39. > :08:42.shambles. The basic argument that there is a divide between a wealthy
:08:43. > :08:47.metropolitan elite and large parts of Middle Britain or the rest of the
:08:48. > :08:53.country I think is basically sound. It is but they are on the wrong side
:08:54. > :08:57.of it. What do you mean by that? The Tory government is on the wrong
:08:58. > :09:02.side. This is appealing to UKIP voters and we know that UKIP is
:09:03. > :09:05.appealing to working-class voters who have previously voted Labour and
:09:06. > :09:11.Tory. If you set up that divide, make sure you are on the right side
:09:12. > :09:14.stop When you talk about metropolitan members of the media
:09:15. > :09:20.class, they say that it is rubbish and everyone has a Polish cleaner.
:09:21. > :09:26.No, they don't. I do not have a clean! I don't clean behind the
:09:27. > :09:31.fridge, either! Most people in the country don't have a cleaner. The
:09:32. > :09:41.problem for the Tories on this is, why play that game? You can't
:09:42. > :09:44.out-UKIP UKIP. After two or three years of sustained Tory effort to do
:09:45. > :09:52.that, they will probably finish behind UKIP. Do we really want a
:09:53. > :09:56.political system where it becomes an issue of where your nanny or your
:09:57. > :10:01.cleaner is from, if you've got one? Unless, of course, they're illegal.
:10:02. > :10:06.But Portuguese or Italian or Scottish... And intervention was
:10:07. > :10:14.from Nick Clegg who said his wife was Dutch -- his mum was Dutch and
:10:15. > :10:20.his wife was Spanish. Not communism but who your cleaner is! It's the
:10:21. > :10:25.McCarthy question! Where does your cleaner come from. A lot of people
:10:26. > :10:31.will say are lucky to have a cleaner. I want to move onto selfies
:10:32. > :10:35.but first, on the Nigel Farage - Nick Clegg debate, let's stick with
:10:36. > :10:43.the TV one. Who do you think will win? Nigel Farage. Clegg. He is a
:10:44. > :10:47.surprisingly good in debates and people have forgotten. I think Clegg
:10:48. > :10:56.is going to win. I think Farage has peaked. We're going to keep that on
:10:57. > :11:03.tape as well! Two 214 Clegg there. Selfies. Politicians are attempting
:11:04. > :11:04.to show they're down with the kids. Let's look at some that we've seen
:11:05. > :11:51.in recent days. Why are they doing this, Helen? I'm
:11:52. > :11:56.so embarrassed you call me reading the SNP manifesto, as I do every
:11:57. > :11:59.Saturday! They do it because it makes them seem authentic and that's
:12:00. > :12:04.the big Lie that social media tells you - that you're seeing the real
:12:05. > :12:07.person. You're not, you're seeing a very carefully manicured, more witty
:12:08. > :12:14.person. That doesn't work for politicians. It looks so fake and
:12:15. > :12:19.I'm still suffering the cringe I see every time I see Cameronserious
:12:20. > :12:24.phone face. Does Mr Cameron really think it big Sim up because he's on
:12:25. > :12:33.the phone to President Obama? Obama is not the personality he once was.
:12:34. > :12:37.There is an international crisis in Ukraine - of course we are expecting
:12:38. > :12:40.to be speaking to Obama! And if you were in any doubt about what a man
:12:41. > :12:46.talking on the telephone looks like, here's a photo. I must confess, I
:12:47. > :12:53.didn't take my own selfie. Did your nanny? My father-in-law took it.
:12:54. > :13:07.Where is your father-in-law from? Scotland. Just checking. Janan, I
:13:08. > :13:14.think we've got one of you. The 1%! What a great telephone! Where did
:13:15. > :13:20.you get that telephone? It looks like Wolf Of Wall Street! That's
:13:21. > :13:25.what I go to bed in. It showed how excited Cameron was to be on the
:13:26. > :13:29.phone to Obama. All our politicians think they are living a mini version
:13:30. > :13:33.of US politics. President Obama goes on a big plane and we complain when
:13:34. > :13:36.George Osborne goes first class on first Great Western. They want to be
:13:37. > :13:42.big and important like American politics but it doesn't work. We'll
:13:43. > :13:47.see your top at next week! That's it for this week. Faxed all
:13:48. > :13:51.our guests. The Daily Politics is on all this week at lunchtime on BBC
:13:52. > :13:56.Two. We'll be back here same time, same place next week. Remember, if
:13:57. > :14:01.it's Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.